Smoking Gun: Bush had his propaganda ready just 2 hours after the towers collapsed

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Answered here:
America: Land of the Elite, Home of the Slave
Inflation eating US alive: $7.25 will be worth less than $5.15 before Minimun Wage raises in 2009

You're entitled believe whatever you want, but your opinions ased on preconceptions and beliefs dont trump factual truth.

But please do try to debunk those and all of my other threads I keep providing to back up my conclussions (in contrast of you "refuting" pages and pages with a few mere paragraphs).

Get back to reality. Citing your own ill-conceived threads doesn't back up your conclusions. I'll just stick to debunking one of your misguided ideas at a time. Let's start with your inflation thread.

You claim that because you click on a button on the inflation calculator web page that says the value of the dollar in 2007 is worth only $.73 compared to 1997. Anybody who's lived in the last 10 years and who has common sense knows this isn't true.

Wait.. let's use the "inflation calculator" to go back even further... how about 1984? Gee.... the dollar is only worth 1.4 cents now compared to 1984 based on your logic and inflation calculator.




Better check your math and your understanding of this concept.

I don't have time to explain to you the politics behind the CPI, and the fallacy of using it to measure inflation. Here's an article from Time Magazine that debunks the inflation myth as based on the CPI.

www.time.com...

Seriously, the sky really isn't falling...

i am so sick of reading " SMOKING GUN " i could puke .
and , as usual , noting at all but a waste of space !

Originally posted by PartChimp
I'm pretty sure that everyone in the nation was reasonably sure that two planes flying directly into the tallest two buildings in America was some sort of terrorist attack...

I don't know what this had to do with anything, but since you mentioned it, what is an act of terrorism? It's a psyop. For context, if there was a conspiracy it would have been an even greater psyop.

My advice; if you are a supporter of the theory that our own government designed the terror attacks of 9/11, stop looking for evidence that isn't there.

There are mountains of evidence, but cold hard proof is rather more elussive. Here we could be onto something, but instead of debate the actual issue you're resorting to red herrings. For those weak arguments please respond here:
9/11 Red Herring Free-For-All!

Honestly, if you want to turn people on to your already shaky and unpopular theory, bring up the more relevant points. This type of uber-paranoia will only turn people off to your idea and make them view you as an over-zealous basement troll.

Which theory? There are tons of them. Official Parrots always seem to forget that all they had to do was allow 9/11 to happen (for their own benefits) and we have a full blown all-time conspiracy.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Considering the 'fog of war', Bush's words were prophectic.
[...]
What was Bush doing declaring that freedom itself was attacked at 12:36am, when he didn't yet have enough input to determine what was actually happening?

Excellent thread starter IIB, a flag and a four stars for that timeline and those videos. Well part of the answer as to why bin Laden was fingered from minute one, is as Orrin Hatch said "this looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden." That had been the model of the threat, outlined in reports and growing in stature since the mid-90s at least.

Thanks brother...

Correct. The inconsistency comes from: If you've read the 9/11 Commission Report, they paint this picture as if GWB barely had a clue about who Bin Laden even was, as he was so beneath GWB and all of his "important matters" (vacations and golfing). Like when Condi Rice was looking like she was pleading for her life trying to argue that the Aug10 PDB didn't give Bush any real indicators about UBL actually trying to target the attacks. They paint him as the benevolent Saint who couldn't percieve any attacks -especially of that nature- happening because he wasn't properly informed about any of it. Then shortly into 9/11, Bush knew enough to make informed statements about the nature of the matter, which would reign as everlasting supreme language.

While we're mentioning Condi, in one of my links in the OP it shows how she was adamant about how UBL wasn't discussed with Bush until after at least the 2nd teleconference (I believe that's the one I mentioned). It gives the appearance that she doesn't want anyone to percieve that they were already talking about UBL right away. But if that's the case then what was Bush doing talking like he's some sort of foreign affairs sociology expert? I really see no way out on this matter.

But the freedoms that were attacked, this is key.

Well according to the opposition in here, and Giuliani the other night against Ron Paul, people flew jumbojets into buildings simply because they hate the lifestyle of individuals liek you and I. It had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. Establishment's "foreign policy" (coups, installation of dictatorships, supporting harsh regimes, invading countries, economic hardships from U.S. economic hegemony, bases in all of their nations (besides Iran, it's basically the only one left) and so on). I've provided pages of arguments to the contrary, yet they won't address them head on.

Originally posted by nick7261
Citing your own ill-conceived threads doesn't back up your conclusions.

I spread out the issues in their own threads to keep things straightforward and coherent. I provided many of these in my OP, but you avoided them. I use my works as tools in later debates, so I advise you tackle them headon because they're not going away and they show that I have pages and pages to backup my arguments that you're trying to dismiss each thread with a paragraph buried in some other thread.

I'll just stick to debunking one of your misguided ideas at a time. Let's start with your inflation thread.

So go for an easy one!

You did it! You cracked the case. Your light of truth shined down onto the dark adn spooky vampire boogieman and we can all go back to bed now. Nothing to see here in this entire thread folks, because IIB's inflation numbers might be off. We're not slaves on this merit alone. Inflation isn't bad, it's not even a tax, and on top of that taxes aren't slavery by definition. GO watch American idol and all will be ok We promise.



So, you declare yourself the expert in inflation, but you dodged the thread about it while attempting to use the calculator to disprove my numbers there? So then, tell us, what is the difference in value if mine is wrong?

Your old time link doens't debunk much. I'd love for you to move your debunking of that into that thread, but of course you'll persist in diverting the entire GWB-Propaganda issue here into the inflation argument alone as you don't like this issue and in these cases it's all about diverting and disrupting "the enemy".

Originally posted by gen.disaray
i am so sick of reading " SMOKING GUN " i could puke .
and , as usual , noting at all but a waste of space !

Ok... you're argument to demonstrate your case of this being nothing is simply declaring that it's nothing?

On 9/11 Bush was being criticized because it took him so long to make a speech on TV. Now someone is saying he made a speech too quick? He was mocked for being so unprepared and we had to wait for them to come up with a speech that took much longer than it should have. And then it's filled with the usual empty rhetoric which is now being used to make accusations of inside knowledge? Is this for real?

Why do people give this guy so much credit? 9/11 was the first warning sign of how incompetent the guy is. forget about that this argument is 100% utter conjecture and vast reaching speculation. not much unlike saying he planned 9/11 based on how long he sat in a classroom.

I believe the argument isn't merely Bush's reaction in the classroom, it's the fact that the Secret Service didn't do their job and literally pick him up off his feet and drag him out of the publicized location. Their job is to ensure his safety without even being ordered in such circumstancs, yet nobody did anything.

When was he criticized for not making a speech soon enough? Did these critics not know that he made his first televised speech before he even left the school?

I really wasn't trying to get into details tha tdidn't have to do with my particular case, but if you want to play rough you can chew on the fact that TWICE he stated that he watched the 1st plane hit. You have to remember that everything he does is scripted, so it makes one wonder why on earth he said that. Perhaps it was to divert critics away from the other issue with that morning, the one I pointed out with this thread... NAH!

I love the incompetance theorists arguments.
Bush is a fool???? If you buy that you're being played as the fool!